My First Encounters with Institutional Mormonism

[_bcspace]

After more than a decade still simplistically reading are we?

[Guest]

After more than a decade still simplistically reading are we?

Yes. I still haven't mastered the apologetic art of ignoring what is plainly written to see the hidden truths only apologists can divine.

“The first rule of historical criticism in dealing with the Book of Mormon ... is, never oversimplify. For all its simple and straightforward narrative style, this history is packed as few others are with a staggering wealth of detail that completely escapes the casual reader. The whole Book of Mormon is a condensation, and a masterly one; it will take years simply to unravel the thousands of cunning inferences and implications that are wound around its most matter-of-fact statements. Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the Book of Mormon contains.”
—Hugh Nibley, 1952

He's a tricky chap your Mormon god, setting all those traps to catch the lazy (>99%) readers.

[_RayAgostini]

Yes. I still haven't mastered the apologetic art of ignoring what is plainly written to see the hidden truths only apologists can divine.

“The first rule of historical criticism in dealing with the Book of Mormon ... is, never oversimplify. For all its simple and straightforward narrative style, this history is packed as few others are with a staggering wealth of detail that completely escapes the casual reader. The whole Book of Mormon is a condensation, and a masterly one; it will take years simply to unravel the thousands of cunning inferences and implications that are wound around its most matter-of-fact statements. Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the Book of Mormon contains.”
—Hugh Nibley, 1952

He's a tricky chap your Mormon god.

So you believe that the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale, sham, and a fraud?

[_Simon Southerton]

So you believe that the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale, sham, and a fraud?

I know that it is not real history about real people. By definition that makes its author a fraud and the contents myth.

[_RayAgostini]

I know that it is not real history about real people.

I still prefer to keep an open mind, even though I'm not disposed to belief in "literalism". But then, I also believe in weird and unthinkable phenomena like "UFOs".

By definition that makes its author a fraud and the contents myth.

When you read the Book of Mormon, did you ever have "burning" feeling and conviction about it?

[_Simon Southerton]

When you read the Book of Mormon, did you ever have "burning" feeling and conviction about it?

Yes, I frequently felt strong emotions as I read the Book of Mormon, but curiously never when I prayed to ask God for a witness it was true. But I did feel strong emotional feelings and because I had been taught that was the Holy Ghost speaking to me, I felt I knew it was true. I think I felt the strong feelings because of the magnitude of what the Book of Mormon represented. A second witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Years later I realized that feelings are not reliable indicators of truth. Everyone feels strong emotional feelings about their own faiths, including Jews, Muslims and Christians. Why would the Holy Ghost be giving conflicting messages?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Simon,
Your wiki seems to suggest that you were exed for adultery, and not for your works, and not because you left. What is your side of the story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Southerton
Wiki-vandalism by the Danites?

[_SteelHead]

Google. It's your friend. Some 7 years after leaving they drag him in to a "court of love":

Hi Folks

I just wanted to let you know the outcome of the Disciplinary Council. I apologize that has taken a while. Today was pretty hectic.

I was excommunicated for “having an inappropriate relationship with a woman” when I was a member of the church, married and a priesthood holder. The meeting went for 3 hours. It was in a small room and it stank by the end of the whole exercise. I spoke to them for about 1.5 hrs; my wife was in there with me for about 10 minutes of that time. They deliberated for the rest of the time. The entire meeting was cordial and the council followed the usual process.

I was not excommunicated for adultery. They did not have evidence to support that charge. They attempted to get evidence this week but were unsuccessful. It was clear that someone connected with either family has pressed for the case to go to a disciplinary council. Each family is now left to wonder who this person was, as the Stake President would not disclose this information. We must protect the gossip mongerer.

When I was invited to respond to the allegations, I refused to discuss my private life with these men. I challenged the Stake President about the appropriateness of prying into family relationships in order to deal with me. What was to be gained by the church interfering now when the events they are so obsessed with occurred almost 2 years ago and for the last 6 months both relationships have been healing? I have been back with my wife for almost 8 months and the other couple is doing likewise.

The Stake President denied that they were avoiding the issue of apostasy and that the charge they were investigating was more important. I seriously question this claim. I am convinced that they were intent on avoiding a council on the charge of apostasy. I was clearly instructed before the meeting that if I attempted to talk about “DNA” and my apostasy that the council would be immediately shut down and that it would be completed in my absence. I respected their request (foolish me) but told them that it was very difficult to defend my integrity against their charges if I couldn’t give good reason why I didn’t believe in the claims of the church anymore. I also told them that it was extremely unusual for the church to pursue someone who hadn’t had anything to do with the church for the last 7 years. In my 10 years on numerous bishoprics, I never observed this.

I strongly challenged the council of 15 men about their motives. I asked if alleged misconduct over 2 years ago between separated adults was more serious than the charge of public apostasy for the last 6 years. There is clear evidence that I am doing my best to heal the relationships with my wife and family but I have given no signs of stopping my apostasy. I was stunned when members of the council assured me that the alleged “inappropriate relationship” was more important than the apostasy. I then quoted from the LDS General Handbook of Instructions where it says that a DC MUST be held for apostasy and MAY be held for adultery. I am confident that there are thousands of Mormon bishops and Stake Presidents who would strongly disagree with the entire council on this issue. Clearly they were set on the path to excommunication regardless of anything I said and the route they took to achieve the objective.

I suggested the Stake President consider calling the council off and to hold another council on the rather obvious charge of apostasy. I said that I was quite prepared to make this a painless process because I could not deny the obvious evidence of apostasy that is plain for all to see. Clearly, I was wasting my breath.

After reading out the decision of the court I asked the Stake President if he had been instructed by his superiors to carry out this council and he denied this. I am inclined to believe him. I think he was absolutely determined from the outset that I was going to be excommunicated. If he called off the council he would have looked a fool and everyone else risked letting the President down if they questioned the appropriateness of the decision.

A kangaroo court in kangaroo country

Simon

[Guest]

Simon,

As one who greatly respects and appreciates your scientific integrity and your courage, I have followed with some fascination the rapid evolution of LDS apologetics in response the environmental pressure exerted by your book.

The situation that the rank and file Mormons who are aware of your work find themselves in is really not an enviable one. When I talk with my TBM family about this (which I do at every opportunity) they can only respond with "science doesn't know everything", or "this issue is not important to my salvation", etc.

Between the bizarre claims of the apologists on this issue and the inability of top Church leadership to even engage, many of the members (including some of my TBM family) have begun to create "just so" stories of their own in order to cope with the cog dis.

They start from the relative new apologetic claim that "a nuanced reading of the Book of Mormon" would indicate that the New World was inhabited when the Jaredites and Lehites arrived.

Of course this is exactly the opposite of what the Book of Mormon says and what Joseph Smith and other prophets and Church leaders have taught for most of the time the LDS Church has been in existence.

In case you don't visit over there, here are some recent amateur apologist statements on the issue from that hotbead of Mormon intellectualism, the MADBoard (MDD).

“I agree with Joseph Smith that the modern American Indians are Lamanites; as I said before, all Native Americans are "Lamanites" because they are in some way related to Lehi, even if they are not.”

"And I also hope you know that we don't give two flying flips about what the "consensus scientific view" is. The "consensus scientific view" about claims made by the Church has been proven wrong many times before, and it won't be the last time."

Here is one addressed to a critic after he had explained why the scientific evidence that has accumulated since your book came out, including next generation high resolution analysis of Native American mtDNA, has provided more support for your conclusions and lead the authors to state, in the paper, that these data pretty much preclude any contribution to the pre-Columbian New World genome by trans-oceanic migrations.

"Seriously, if you have to let the mainstream scientific community dictate what you believe about how the world works, instead of coming to your own conclusions, then I feel sorry for you."

As I said on another thread, you just can't make this stuff up.

If my TBM family finally does leave the Church, and this is looking more likely each year, it will be in no small measure because of your willingness to choose science over superstition and share your knowledge about Native American genetics with those who need it most (whether they appreciate that fact right now or not).

[_brade]

“I agree with Joseph Smith that the modern American Indians are Lamanites; as I said before, all Native Americans are "Lamanites" because they are in some way related to Lehi, even if they are not.”

"Seriously, if you have to let the mainstream scientific community dictate what you believe about how the world works, instead of coming to your own conclusions, then I feel sorry for you."